High court strikes Massachusetts abortion 'buffer zone'

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that restricted speech outside abortion facilities, a decision that abortion-rights advocates decried as a threat to patient safety at clinics nationwide.

The court said the state law violated the First Amendment because its “buffer zone” limited speech too broadly, covering 35 feet from the doorway of facilities and including public areas like sidewalks.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Although other buffer zones typically are smaller, specifying distances such as 8 feet or 15 feet from clinics, the advocates said the court’s decision puts them in jeopardy. “If you were a betting man, you would bet that they’ll all go,” said Roger Evans, senior counsel at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Abortion opponents hailed the ruling as a victory in protecting free speech and their ability to peacefully protest or counsel women entering clinics that perform abortions. They also suggested it would force a reexamination of similar laws.

Thursday’s decision does not directly affect the buffer zones in other states and cities, and the justices indicated that more limited restrictions could be put into place in Massachusetts.

The Obama administration, which argued in court in defense of the Massachusetts statute, said it would support any attempt to create an alternative zone there.

“While the court disagreed on this specific law, we are pleased that their ruling was narrow and that they recognized the possibility of alternative approaches, such as the federal law protecting a woman’s right to access reproductive health clinics,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “The administration remains committed to enforcing that law to the fullest.”

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said she had spoken with Gov. Deval Patrick, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and state lawmakers shortly after the ruling, and all were committed to moving quickly to protecting women’s access to the five clinics affected. Massachusetts officials will seek court injunctions and other actions against protesters who threaten women’s safety, as well as work with law enforcement, Coakley said.

The Boston facility at the center of the lawsuit likely will have to add clinic escorts to protect patients, said Martha Walz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. Escorts are currently present on Saturdays, but “I anticipate that we will need to have them on additional days of the week,” Walz said.

The court ruled 9-0 that the state law was a violation of the First Amendment, but the justices were split on why, with Chief Justice John Roberts appearing to be the swing vote. He joined the court’s liberal block, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, in saying that the law’s limits on speech were too broad.

“Here the Commonwealth has pursued [public safety] interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers,” Roberts wrote for the court. The extent of those zones “burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the commonwealth’s asserted interests.”

In its majority ruling, the court did not establish what distance would be acceptable but made a veiled suggestion that a smaller space would be legal in Massachusetts.

“If the Commonwealth is particularly concerned about harassment, it could also consider an ordinance such as the one adopted in New York City that not only prohibits obstructing access to a clinic, but also makes it a crime ‘to follow and harass another person within 15 feet of the premises of a reproductive health care facility,’” Roberts wrote, adding that the ruling is not necessarily a stamp of approval on that municipal law.

The other justices, the court’s four conservatives, said the law was unfairly aimed at anti-abortion speech because it restricted protesters but not clinic employees.

The decision in McCullen v. Coakley is the most significant abortion-related ruling to come out of the court since its 2007 decision upholding a ban on certain late-term abortions.